Re: [Jmol-developers] Back from travels

[E.L. W. (Egon) <eg...@sc...>]

On Tuesday 22 July 2003 20:49, Miguel wrote:
> I am back from my travels ... you may have seen that I did a few check-ins
> to cvs.

Yes, I have. Long live the commits email list ;)

> Part of the good news is that I was able to continue work on the 3D (2.5D)
> graphics engine.

How was your holiday?

>  - rendering performance of spheres (atoms) is faster
>  - I did a lot of work on higher-quality rendering of cylinders (bonds).
>    But I am still not satisified with the results.

Yes, the endcaps, right? Saw something in the commit message...

> Fabian, I would like to know what performance is like on your slower
> machine.
>
> At this point I am having a hard time maintaining backwards compatibility
> with the previous (java-based) graphics implementation. I think I have
> asked these questions before, but I want to ask again:
>
> Assuming that performance is not an issue:
>
> How important is "boxes" rendering of bonds?
>
> How important is "quickdraw" rendering of atoms & bonds?
>
> How important is "wireframe" rendering of atoms?
>
> How important is "wireframe rotations"?

These are not important. I.e. these do *not* have to be in the same
renderer... Origanally, I envisioned this: Renderer3D.java, 
QuickdrawRenderer3D.java, etc... Wireframe rotation is a view people like, 
but only the atoms, normally, I think... so wireframe rendering of atoms is, 
AFAIK, much less important...

Wireframe rotation... if performance is acceptable, then we can do without
that too, I guess...

Egon

PS. I'll be online most of the day after 9:30 am CET...